A party claiming possession must provide satisfactory evidence; failure to do so results in dismissal of claims, particularly when opposing party has established legal title.

JUDGMENT :

1. The plaintiff in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction is the appellant. The plaint schedule property originally is shown as 85 cents of land in R.S.No.181/2 of Perole village. After the filing of the Ext.C1 Commission Report and Ext.C1(a) Plan, the extent was amended as 79.388 cents of land. Both sides admit that the Jenmom right of the plaint schedule property belonged to Vettakkorumakan Devaswom.

2. The plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff obtained kuzhikanam right over the plaint schedule property 50 years back. The defendant obtained Purchase Certificate with respect to an extent of 2 Acre 50 cents of land including the plaint schedule property as per order in I.A.No.10919/75. Immediately upon knowing the issuance of the Purchase Certificate, the plaintiff filed an Appeal before the appellate authority, and the same is pending consideration. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and paying government taxes and rent to the jenmi and making improvements. The plaint schedule property consists of improvements like jack tree, Kurukuthi tree cultivated by the plaintiff. The cause of action for filing the suit is that the defendant trespassed into this property on 06.04.2008 and cut the trees in the plaint schedule property and he tried to take possession of the property.

3. The defendant opposed the suit prayers by contending inter alia that the plaintiff is a proxy of the defendants in O.S.No.32/1996 filed by the plaintiff for recovery of possession. The defendant obtained delivery of the property on 27.10.2007. According to the defendant, the defendant obtained kuzhikanam right orally from the Vettakkorumakan Devaswom, Nileswar and had been regularly paying the purappad to the jenmee and thereafter purchased the jenm right as per order in O.A.No.10919/75. The plaintiff is a total stranger to the plaint property and he has no right title or possession over the property.

4. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and his son was examined as PW2. Exts.A1 to A7 were marked from the side of the plaintiff. No oral evidence was adduced from the side of the defendants. But Exts.B1 to B15 documents were marked from the side of the defendant. The Commission Report was marked as Ext.C1 and the Rough Sketch was marked as Ext.C1(a).

5. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant by a permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and cutting the existing trees and putting fire to the leaves and committing waste and damages.

6. The defendant filed Appeal before the First Appellate Court and the same was allowed setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissing the suit.

7. Both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court found that there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the property.

8. The Trial Court found that the plaintiff has got possession over the plaint schedule property as Ext.B1 to B10 documents produced by the defendant are not binding on the plaintiff as he was not a party to the said proceedings. The Trial Court also found that no oral evidence was adduced from the side of the defendant to prove the possession over the suit property. Exts.A1 to A5 proved the possession of the suit property.

9. The First Appellate Court found that the possession of the plaint schedule property could not be found in favour of the plaintiff as Exts.A1 to A5 do not show that the same relates to the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff has not explained the difference of the extent in the